After Arnie and Rothy's plans were thwarted in a well ochestrated Internet campaign headed by Alex Jones and others I was racking my brain as to who would be the Hegalian soloution to the nutty, religious fanatic King Gorge.

The right hook to Bush's distracting left jab has to be Hillary.

She's the perfect fit...

Secular

Liberal

Internationalist

U.N Lover.

How perfect, I cant believe I missed the obvious.

Alexandra

02-28-2005, 08:34 PM

Wow, I don't know who's worse, the Governator or the Dragon Lady.... :-P

Forget that noise, I'm voting Constitution Party again in '06 if I can (I think there's one running for Ohio AG) and in '08!

truebeliever

03-01-2005, 01:39 AM

To hell with voting.

Did you notice your last 2 elections?

We here in Oz still have a chance...i'm not so sure about the States.

Best of luck however.

I dont know about dragon lady...those power suits do something for me...SLAP!... :lol:

Draken

03-01-2005, 04:29 AM

EXACTLY!

Why I Do Not Vote

by Butler Shaffer
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer1.html

With the 2000 election behind us – if, indeed, it will ever be behind us – I have now gone 36 years without participating in the voting process. It was not always thus. Upon my graduation from law school, my first full-time job was that of executive secretary of the Nebraska Republican Party. I later became a member of the State Central Committee, the Young Republican State Executive Committee, one of the incorporators of Barry Goldwater’s first national fund-raising campaign, and a member of the Nebraska delegation to the 1964 Republican National Convention. The Goldwater movement was the precursor to the modern Libertarian Party, and was largely energized by young men and women who were convinced that state power had become destructive of individual liberty and social order, and that "working within the system" could change all of that. My experiences in the Republican Party convinced me otherwise. Like Karl Hess, a man who was to become one of my dearest friends years later, I quickly lost my appetite for politics and have never returned.

Is there a case to be made for voting? Indeed there is, if one believes that social order is a quality that can be instilled, by violence and other coercive means, by political authorities. I do not accept this proposition. To the contrary, I believe that social order is the product of unseen, spontaneous influences of which most of us are not consciously aware. The study of economics helped me to understand how we respond, marginally, to fluctuations that are continuously generated by one another’s self-seeking pursuits. I also came to understand that politics – like a rock thrown through a spider’s web – disrupts these informal processes as well as the existing patterns of interconnectedness upon which any social order depends.

I suspect that most of those reading these words share my sense of liberty and social order, and so I shall not address the mindset of the statists herein. I understand the temptation, born largely of a sense of frustration, of wanting to participate in the political process in order to get persons elected who more closely reflect one’s views. The illusion of a short-term reduction in the rate of increase of state power clouds the longer-term consequences inherent in political participation. Political systems derive their power not from guns and prisons, but from the willingness of those who are to be ruled to expend their energies on their behalf. For state power to exist, a significant number of men and women must sanction the idea of being ruled by others, a sanction that depends, ultimately, upon the credibility of those who exercise such power. When we vote in an election, we are declaring, by our actions, our support for the process of some people ruling others by coercive means. Our motivations for such participation – even if they be openly expressed as a desire to bring state power to an end – do not mitigate the fact that our energies are being employed on behalf of the destructive principle that liberty and social order can best be fostered through the coercive machinery of the state.

One of the sadder comments that I heard, just prior to the recent election, was from a radio talk show host whose thoughtful and analytical mind I generally respect. In response to a caller who complained that Gov. Bush was philosophically inconsistent upon some issue, he declared that "politics is the art of compromise," and that if one wanted principled consistency, one could find it "only in a religion." It is this attitude upon which I wish to focus, for I believe that the conflicts we experience – both within ourselves as individuals and socially – derive from a sense of division. The attitude that one’s philosophic principles are nothing more than interesting "ideas" that have no relevance to how we behave with others – an attitude that is implicit in this talk show host’s remarks – is what is destroying us, both individually and societally. It derives from the same sentiment, articulated in the actions of Bill Clinton, that truth-telling is simply one of a number of strategies available in efforts to reach political "compromise;" that a lie is as good as the truth if you can get others to believe it. It is the notion that principles are nothing more than fungible commodities – to be traded according to the prices dictated by prevailing fashion – that now directs the seemingly endless cycle of vote recounts in Florida. As Groucho Marx put it: "Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others."

I have long found nourishment in the words of Richard Weaver: "ideas have consequences." If I am of the view that politics is destroying our world – and let us not forget that politics managed to kill off some 200,000,000 of our fellow humans in the 20th century alone – am I prepared to direct my energies into such a destructive system? If I answer "yes," which I would do if I voted, then do my philosophic principles have any real-world meaning to them, or are they simply amusing ideas to be talked about, debated, or dispersed across cyberspace? If I cannot end the division within myself by living with integrity (i.e., by having my behavior and my principles integrated into a coherent whole) then what hope is there for the rest of mankind doing so? I am mankind, as are you, and as Carl Jung so eloquently put it: "if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either;" that the individual must realize "that he is the one important factor and that the salvation of the world consists in the salvation of the individual soul." To participate in politics is to consciously devote one’s energies to mass-mindedness; to the statist proposition that collective thinking and collective behavior preempt the will of the individual.

Still, there is a basis for optimism. Just as the marketplace generates its own responses to government regulatory schemes, there are informal processes at work undercutting the foundations of statism. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of state socialism generally; anti-taxation and secessionist movements throughout the world; the study of chaos – whose major tenet that complex systems are unpredictable strips away any rationale for state planning and control; the Internet as an unrestrained expression of information and ideas; and, in America, the contributions of Clinton and Gore to bringing discredit upon and destroying the credibility not only of the presidency, but of government itself, have all been major contributors to the terminal condition of Leviathan. How remarkable, that the Internet – which Al Gore advised us he created! – should now be the undoing of the imperial presidency that he and Mr. Clinton sought to enlarge! What better confirmation of the power of unintended consequences!

At no period in my lifetime have the opportunities for reversing the dehumanizing nature of politically dominated societies been greater. Leviathan is dying as a consequence of its inner contradictions. Those of us who love liberty should rethink any temptations we might have to rush to the deathbed of statism and attempt to revivify its corpse by giving it a transfusion of our energies. The society upon which statism has fed will doubtless undergo a few headaches, fevers, and upset stomachs in the interim. But like a case of the flu, it may be better to let the sickness run its course rather than continue our habit of suppressing the symptoms.
November 14, 2000

Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.

truebeliever

03-01-2005, 08:35 PM

I agree Draken.

I've voted once.

I dont know exactly what to do. All I know is I hope the system collapses and we move on with grass roots movements of people simply living and getting on.

I'm personall buying property and dropping out...completely (thats my theory for today). Some say you should'nt and you should support the system as the only way to fix it...i dont know. A farm and my own fresh delicious vegetables works for me. Others will work it out for themselves.

The last thing we need is another system ending in 'ism'.

Whatever the answer...we'll be finding out soon enough.

Hey Drak...hows the yodling coming?

marypopinz

03-02-2005, 05:54 AM

Me too. I only voted once in my life. England for the green party, just a joke really.

It never made sense to me to consciously vote and pick an arsehole. Politics is bullshit.

RUready

03-03-2005, 07:50 PM

a mason, who else

truebeliever

03-03-2005, 11:30 PM

How bout the wife of a Mason...or Colin Powel...he is so dashing in uniform...

Yeh, how bout Bush pisses of military in grand plan for military to throw coup in supposed effort to get rid of mad king goerge...then in comes military dictatorship...as planned from start...oooo yes, i can see the Tom Clancy cover now.

In the matter of "elections" which had a vogue of almost two centuries during the life of Western civilization, both in Europe and in its spiritually dominated areas elsewhere, an important law of political organisms is shown.

In "democratic" conditions ... occur the phenomena known as "elections." It was the theory of "democracy" arising about 1750 that the "absolute" power of the monarch, or the aristocracy, depending on local conditions, must be broken, and this power transferred to "the people." This use of the word "people" shows again the necessarily polemical nature of all words used politically. "People" was merely a negative; it merely wished to deny that the dynasty, or else the aristocracy, belonged to "the people." It was thus an attempt to deny the monarch or aristocracy political existence; in other words, this word implicitly defined them as the enemy in the true political sense. It was the first time in Western history that an intellectualized theory became the focus of political happening. Wherever the monarch or aristocracy were stupid or incapable, wherever they looked backward instead of adapting themselves to the new century, they went down. Wherever they took over the theories themselves and interpreted them officially, they retained their power and their command.

The technique of transferring this "absolute" power to "the people" was to be through plebiscites, or "elections." The theoretical proposal was to give the power to millions of human beings, to each his nth/millionth fraction of total existing political power. This was of course impossible in a way that even the intellectuals could see, so the compromise was "elections" through which each individual in the organism could "choose" a "representative" for himself. If the representative did something, by a satisfying fiction it was agreed that each little individual "represented" had done that himself.

In a short time it became obvious to men interested in power, either for themselves personally, or to carry through their ideas, that if one worked previously to one of these "elections" to influence the minds of the voting populace, he would be "elected." The greater one's means of persuasion of the masses of voters, the more certain was his subsequent "election." The means of persuasion were whatever one had at hand: rhetoric, money, newsprint. Since elections were large things, disposing of large amounts of power, only those who commanded corresponding means of persuasion could control them. Oratory came into its own, the Press stepped out as a lord of the land, the power of Money towered above all. A monarch could not be bought; what bribe could appeal to him? He could not be put under the usurers' pressure—he could not be sued. But party politicians, living in times when values became increasingly money-values, could be bought. Thus democracy presented the picture of the populace under the compulsion of elections, the delegates under the compulsion of Money, and Money sitting in the seat of the monarch.

So the absolute power remained—as it must in any organism, for it is an existential law of every organism that: The power within an organism is constant, and if individuals, groups, or ideas within the organism are diminished in power, some other individuals, groups, or ideas are increased in power by that amount.

This Law of Constancy of Intra-Organismic Power is existential, for if a diminution of power in one place within does not pass elsewhere within the organism, the organism is sickened, weaker, and may have lost its political existence as an independent unit. The history of South America from 1900 to 1950 is rich in examples of triumphant revolutions against regimes that stripped them of power—which then moved to the United States of North America, and as long as that condition continued, the country in which such a revolution had occurred was a colony of Yanqui imperialismo.

Ahmad

03-12-2005, 04:44 AM

Peace Draken,

Very good article, indeed the modern democracy is nothing but dictatorship disguised.

Let's put it in simple words, a group of people living together in a small community, they have weekly meetings where every mature male participates, on behalf of his family that he has duely consulted. Gradually people start to skip these meetings, in which important decisions for the community are being made. So someone suggests that it would be easier if those who are not always free to participate, to give their vote to a representative whom they choose from the few regular members. Evereybody agrees, but now the regular members out of laziness and apathy, start disappearing, in the end, they leave all matters to that guy who suggested the evil idea of (representatives), not much time passes before he becomes a dictator, why? because the people has given him their responsbility willingly.

In "Submission", the family is the building block of the society, God commands the males to be in charge, but not to abuse their leadership, meaning that they must consult their family members before making a final decision. Now this family leader joins the meetings of his community as a representative on behalf of his family, similarly the community must reach a unanimous decision (through due consultation) and then the leader goes to a higher meeting on behalf of his community, this process continues till we reach one leader who makes decisions taking into consideration all these unanimous decisions or votes.

In modern democracy though, the individuals don't count, the representative makes the decisions without consulting them, which naturally leads to the monopoly of power in the hands of a few.

Every individual is responsible infornt of God for his decisions, dictatorship (either direct or subtle) negates this responsbility. If there was due consultation, no war would have ever been fought, because there will always be righteous people to object, and their voices would be heard.

[14:21] When they all stand before GOD, the followers will say to the leaders, "We used to follow you. Can you spare us even a little bit of GOD's retribution?" They will say, "Had GOD guided us, we would have guided you. Now it is too late, whether we grieve or resort to patience, there is no exit for us."

[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

[42:38] They respond to their Lord by observing the Contact Prayers (Salat). Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves, and from our provisions to them they give (to charity).

nohope187

03-12-2005, 02:34 PM

Condi Rice made mention that she was considering to run in 2008. I got that from drudgereport.com :-P

Saturnino

03-23-2005, 05:15 PM

They are preparing Arnold to run against Hillary. He was seen with Buffet and Rothshild before he got the California election.
Unbelievable but true.

After Jesse The Body Ventura and Arnold himself got elected ?
I don`t doubt it.
check arnoldexposed.com

Draken

03-25-2005, 08:20 AM

It struck me as I was checking out that Arnold Exposed site that Americans are still stupidly buying into the major deception that the biggest threat to their "freedom" and "way of life" is from neo-Nazism instead of the much more massively menacing threat coming from Communism.

But of course the fact that both Nazism and Communism advocate Socialism and mass slavery (not to mention the fact that Communism slaughtered c:a 250 million people and are still at it) and that the Financial Elite is using both ideologies (but mostly Communism, since Nazism is in fact the ideology that's played out its role when it was used by the Zionists to create Israel) to reach their goal of global dictatorship, is totally lost on them.

nohope187

03-25-2005, 05:37 PM

It's actually kinda funny in really sad way that people fear the Nazis, but completely the forgot the Commies. It just goes to show how far the dark hand of NWO has reached into Amerikan system of education. I can't see the end of the world, but I can see the end of my country being a so-called free nation from here. When in Soviet Amerika, do as the Russians do. :-P

Drew_J

12-06-2005, 07:31 PM

After Arnie and Rothy's...
I'm aware of a campaign against Arnold. But who is Rothy?